Bullock El-Bey v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety et al
Jamal Bullock El-Bey |
Russell Chester, Daniel Turner, North Carolina Department of Public Safety/Prisons and NC Department of Public Safety |
5:2021cv00084 |
May 26, 2021 |
US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
Martin Reidinger |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 cv |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 5 RESPONSE in Opposition re #3 Response /Objection to Notice of Removal by Russell Chester, NC Department of Public Safety, Daniel Turner. (McInnes, Alan) |
![]() |
Filing 3 OBJECTION re #1 Notice of Removal by Jamal Bullock El-Bey. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope) (tmg) |
Filing 2 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff's Complaint by Russell Chester, NC Department of Public Safety, Daniel Turner. (McInnes, Alan) |
Case assigned to Chief Judge Martin Reidinger. This is your only notice - you will not receive a separate document. (tmg) |
Pro Se Law Clerk Referral to PSLC: 2 (tmg) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Alexander County Superior Court, case number 21-cvs-183. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0419-5050632), filed by North Carolina Department of Public Safety/Prisons, Russell Chester, Daniel Turner. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A--Summonses, #2 Exhibit B--Complaint, #3 Exhibit C--Discovery Requests)(McInnes, Alan) (Main Document 1 replaced on 6/1/2021) (tmg). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.